W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

Re: What would you like to see in WebRTC next? A low-level API?

From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:45:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaL5OtMDm3S8UV-1wf0XpGhCKs61OA+tgSrs9OGNauC6VQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Thanks for asking!

A way to set e2e encryption keys (for something like SRTP double) would be
great!

Obviously doing that from the regular API wouldn’t make much sense, but
giving that option to browser extensions would be nice!

Emil

On Tue 23 Jan 2018 at 16:58, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:

> For a long time, there has been interest in extending WebRTC to allow for
> more low-level control (at times called "WebRTC NV", similar to ORTC).
> Recently, at TPAC 2017, since WebRTC 1.0 went to CR, we began to seriously
> discuss what to do next, and there was a lot of interest in low-level ICE
> controls and in QUIC-based data channels.  Since then, we started
> extensions specs for QUIC and ICE, and there has been discussion around
> SCTP data channels API and WHATWG streams.
>
> With so many options available for what to do next, it's probably a good
> time to step back, look at the big picture and ask:  What do we want to
> accomplish with WebRTC next, and how are we going to get there?
>
> *Please write back to this thread and let the WG know what you'd like to
> see in WebRTC next and why*.  In particular, if you expressed interested
> at TPAC for QUIC or low-level ICE, please let us know why you are
> interested.
>
> To answer my own question, here's where I think we should head and how we
> can get there:
>
> *I propose we build a true Low-Level WebRTC API.  *
>
> As an app developer, I want the lowest-level API I can get.  I can build
> the app up from low-level primitives, or rely on libraries to do so.  This
> will allow me to improve my app without waiting for standardization,
> browser implementations, browser bug fixes, and browser performance
> improvements.  I will be able to control my own destiny to a greater extent
> and make me dependent on a smaller surface area.   As a browser
> implementer, this also means less that developers are relying on me to
> standardize, implement, and maintain.
>
> Ideally, we could provide the same APIs that mobile apps get: raw network
> access and low-level access to hardware encoders/decoders.  The web can't
> go quite that low.  But we can get close.
>
> *We can get a great low-level API by a few incremental improvements*
>
> We start with a existing combination of APIs that approximates a good
> low-level API: getUserMedia + WebAudio/canvas + data channels.  It's
> clunky, but it's there.   For example, one can already capture audio using
> getUserMedia+WebAudio, encode it using ASM.js (or WebASM?) and send it over
> the network using the data channel from PeerConnection, and then do
> similarly on the receive side.  We can improve on the situation by:
>
> 1.  Adding low-level p2p transports (ICE or SLICE)
> 2.  Adding low-level media/data transports (DTLS/SCTP or QUIC)
> 3.  Adding low-level encoder/decoders (like Android's MediaCodec API)
>
> It's all incremental, it's better each step of the way, and after doing
> each of them, we have a great low-level API.  For example, one could
> capture and encode video using getUserMedia and hardware encoders, then
> send it over the network using SCTP or QUIC directly, and then do similarly
> on the receive side.  One could also tightly control which network path(s)
> media is sent over at any given time.
>
> That's what I would like to see us pursue.  But again, please write back
> to this thread and let the WG know what you'd like to see.
>
-- 
—sent from my mobile
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2018 12:45:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 25 January 2018 12:45:58 UTC